If a Martian walked through the door right now wanting to know about life on Earth, I’d struggle explaining two things:
- I’m a bit shaky on how Noah managed to create the refrigeration system to keep polar bears cold and the lions hot in his ark (any chance it’s all bullcrap?).
- Also, I’d need at least two hours to explain why U.S. customary system is so freakn’ stupid (admit it) — there are different arbitrary units for everything.
But I’d explain what’s better for fat loss — diet alone or diet + exercise-with ease. Here’s how I’d explain it to a Martian:
You can create this deficit via diet alone, exercise alone, or a combination of both:
Now, a calorie deficit via exercise versus a calorie deficit through diet yields the same loss (given equal net energy balance). This has been demonstrated in research. So a 3500-calorie deficit via exercise or diet will result in the same weight loss.
But here’s the deal: The goal of every sound weight loss phase shouldn’t be merely losing weight. It should be:
And that’s where losing weight with diet alone starts to fall behind diet + exercise (resistance training more specifically).
Hunter et al. conducted a study in which they put 94 women in three groups:
At the end of the study, all three groups lost weight but only the diet + resistance training group preserved and even built muscle: